I do not have any problem with your definition of spirituality, as long as it is about "the path to know the nature, understand ur own body and mind". Some might, however, go about the same by means of nature study, or study of biology or neurology or anthropology etc. and call it education.
Like I have said many times before, there is a difference between science and spirituality. U cannot neglect one for favouring the other. Today with that study of biology etc. one has come to know of the bodily functions and how they work, we have developed advanced techniques. But studies reveal we had advanced and rich knowledge in the past too.
Developing a medicine, testing it on animals, for the welfare of humans is that morality? Among humans too we have different immunity levels. Wisdom? And then many of those medicines have side effects. Are we getting cured?
It has been proven how love, faith, emotions can heal a person when everything else fails. A study to develop a device that cools the atmosphere like AC, isn't spiritualism!
U say u have read all my posts, but u r only making me repeat now.
It would be better if you learn that our great ancestors were both spiritual and scientific (in its true definition).
We are of course connected to each other by a common prehistoric ancestor, which has since long disappeared without a trace. The fact, that all vertebrates have a common sea ancestor, is evidenced by the fact that we still need sodium chloride to maintain our bodily functions. So, I also don't see why we can't say that we are connected in an evolutionary process, although, the genetic print of that one common ancestor is lost due to millions of years of mutation.
I was 'not' talking of 'theory' of evolution which u r putting up as an argument like its a fact! But yes we have lost a lot in million years due to wars, greed, religious intolerance, communal hatred, ego works etc.
Wisdom, again, can be had through proper education (It does not refer to academic education only. For a tribe living in the deep jungles of the Amazon basin, the most pertinent education is how to hunt successfully) and right experiences, (e.g. if you take your hand close to the fire, the heat should warn you of the damage it may cause to your hand, and you would recoil your hand. This experience should teach you to stay away from fire). This is where, I would part ways. Trying to know the "eternal" wisdom, however, presupposes that there is something "eternal" or "infinite" about some wisdom. Materialists are not good with presuppositions and seeks clear explanations, which I am sure, you will provide.
There is a difference between skill and wisdom. With that "experience" one may be able to hunt far off prey, which might seem "impossible" for a person who does not know, how to hunt.
When I talk of "eternal"/"infinite" wisdom, its only ideal. If materialists need "clear" explanation of everything, then science in its true meaning has to be "ideal" for them. But then, why do they "follow" "theories" as if they are "facts", form theories based on another set of theories, give names to the concepts they only visualize to be like "dark energy/ dark matter"?
Sure, why is it that everytime I ask those materialists "what" universe is, they fail everytime? I am sure u will provide the answer to those "theories", "presuppositions" etc.
Again I am merely repeating and u say u have read it all? I have asked and discussed a lot.
[In one debate with another spiritual person, I was told, that it is learning the "eternal truth". When I asked what do you mean by eternal truth, he replied back that it is about acknowledging and understanding that there is a greater consciousness, far bigger than the self. When I pointed to him that since he could explain what "eternal truth" is, it would mean that he has already known it, and hence his journey of spiritualism has ended, he, of course, replied back in kind words of the ghetto.]
Please refrain from giving such kind of examples, cause u can see a few of em in this forums also who talk in the tone of a hardcore materialist, but yet can't explain what I ask and jump to conclusions quickly....Scientific?? We are not discussing "that guy said that, and I won".
Non-spirituality, on the basis of your definition would be, pursuing knowledge through study of empirical evidence (as in nature studies, biology, neurology, anthropology etc.) or reasoning (as in evolutionary science), without having to resort to non-physical.
U r wrong. It seems ur concepts are not clear.
U r treating as if non-spirituality is a synonym of "science". That would make science and spirituality antonyms. Different fields, subjects do not mean they r opposites. That wud surely make a majority of scientists look foolish!!
U wanted to know my point of view and the defintition I presented. But the definition u have inferred is totally wrong.
The experiences, that you have associated with your definition of spirituality, can also be described as a feeling of wonderment, or a state of being in awe. I would like to think, everybody, whether spiritual or not, has enough sensitivity or emotion to make one appreciate beauty or quality, although it may vary in degree. Just because someone is spiritual, he is better suited to enjoy nature, or understand Mozart, or appreciate Tagore's novels, or marvel at Picasso's painting, is an argument, that does not support evidence.
Are u sure, if a person who is possessed enough by the material world and its materialistc pleasures can appreciate it "all"? Greed, hatred etc. I don't even understand how 'drinking' is called enjoyment since u don't even know what u r doing and it only corrupts ur body and mind?
If yes, then why even reject hypnotism? Like I said there is a little spiritualism in all, but its the intensity that distinguishes a non-spiritual from spritual and depends on how much u r "receptive"!!
It is perhaps not fair to assume, that just because one is not spiritual, he will be callous, self-hedonist, with no charity or kindness or generosity, and because one is spiritual he will be all of those. I understand that you are a fairly charitable person, and you believe that all this came to you because of your deep involvement with spirituality. Fair enough. But why are you assuming that this is the only way to goodness. A theist, on the other hand would claim, that the only way to goodness is god. Since you are an atheist, you will not find reason in it. But in doing so, you will be putting yourself in the same shoes of a non-spiritual person, as opposed to spiritual person.
Again, it seems u r unclear of what u r saying. Where did I say that it is the "only way to goodness"? So far it seems u r only assuming things that I have never said and many of em those assumptions are totally wrong.
Yes, I am an atheist. Why shudn't I find reason in it? Some treat "God" as an ideal too. For them, they seek wisdom in him and ask for guidance where it is only their spiritual self that is pondering over the situation.
But its the "blind faith" that I am against of. Some have blind faith in religion and some have that blind faith in science which makes them follow it, not pondering and questioning over the concepts thinking that they have already been pondered over. Some of em even put forward the theories like they are some kind of facts.
I am not saying to reject those theories, but simply to ponder over it, where a law is formed when the "majority" have "accepted" it and no more "flaws" are found against it. So please ponder!!
Remember a true scientist is one who doesn't accepts anything easily and also doesn't rejects anything likewise.
Physical means, which has presence in time and space. Non-physical means which does not. When materialists argue about everything being physical, it means that all phenomena, however, strange or mysterious it may appear to common sense, can be explained as or traced back or reduced to some physical process. Does gravity have a physical presence or a non-physical presence ? The correct question is, is gravity a result of some physical process or a non-physical process. As it turns out, it is a result of motion of matter, even at molecular level. Since, gravity is dependent on mass and motion, if any of the two is taken away, gravity ceases, confirming it to be physical process.
Explanation requires how, when and why. Why mass or distance affects gravity? Do we really know the full extent of everything that science deals with?
Again, it leads to repetitions
Same is the case with emotions. Loosely we ascribe it to mind, whereas, a materialist would call it a faculty of brain, which can further be reduced to some neural activities, resulting in flow of hormone, specially, Serotonin. A misbalance in the flow of this hormone causes, extreme emotions. Same is the case with intelligence or similar other phenomena.
I have not asked about the 'result' of emotions, but simply what is emotion. And when I say explain, I need "how, when and why". Why don't u describe whats the case with intelligence and those terms which u labelled under "similar other phenomena"? And if thats the case then why is science now bringing in spirituality to heal the patients since it can already do that with the balance of hormones and applying "physical" measures?? Have you really read the links I had put forward?
If mind is a separate entity, then it does not explain adequately why, when a person faces near death experience, that leaves her handicapped severely, she suffers from trauma, which can, in most cases be permanent. If mind does not have a spaceal existence, should not it remain unscathed.
You are treating mind as if it is some physical entity. Its a similar situation where one needs both software and hardware to run a PC purposefully to get his task done. A software corruption doesn't mean a hardware fault and a hardware failure doesn't mean a software failure.
Is religion a means of spirituality:
According to the explanation given by you, it is not. But to a theist, it is. Your definition is acceptable to you, for reasons that you feel are valid. A theists, definition is also valid to him, again, for reasons, that he finds acceptable. Implying, that he is wrong and you are right, requires explanation as to why. A materialist, meanwhile, is immune to any definition of spirituality, and however it is presented, whether in religious package or otherwise.
Every person, finds her religion to be “good” and all other religions to be “bad”, there is nothing new about it. What is, however, new is an atheist, would find it alright, bringing in a distinction between “good” religion and “bad” religion. Should not an atheist be indifferent to a religion as a whole. Are we sure, that we are not jumping into some conclusion on the basis of current day events in the name of religion, without actually studying them. Because if it is the current day events, that are making us bring this distinction, then can we at all bring in this distinction in the first place.
However, I understand, that it is the misinterpretation of Gore Vidal and more currently, the lenient tone of Sam Harris, that have quite inadvertently, added fuel to the fire of making such distinctions.
Definition of spirituality is universal I think and is more coherent to the one I gave. "Following blindly" anything cannot be called spiritualism. Killing people , sacrificing animals, polluting rivers etc in the name of god is far from "spirituality"!! A religious man "may" be spiritual, but saying "religious hence spiritual" would be like treating "spirituality" as a direct implication of being religious and that would be absurd.
You are totally wrong about the second statement in bold. I do not treat other religions as bad, but its only the "blind following" that I am against of. If that would have been the case then, there would have been mass slaughter of people of "other" religions.
So whats new is you telling me that people of one religion despise other religions and "there is nuthing new in it"! And by now if u have read even a small percentage of overall links and posts of mine, then u wud have clearly realised that I am "religious" too. I hope I don't need to repeat on this one too.
Millions believe and experience, hence true:
Millions believe that jesus was born of a virgin woman, and millions claim to feel god, (priests, monks, yogis), but that does not preclude you to become an atheist. You surely have your reasons for being an atheist. But if you call upon this argument, a theist may use the same against your atheistic belief. You can’t disagree to one argument in one context and agree to the same in another, according to whim or convenience.
Also, is there any safety in numbers ? That, there is none, was proved by Copernicus, with his life, and Galileo, with his surrender.
How many of em were scientific? I am not talking of people of an age or under some superstition where questioning some grand authority like a church was treated with offence and hence lowering the value of questioning. Neither I talk of "fake" monks, yogis etc. I am talking of an age where majoirity of people are scientific and still practise yoga and majority of them have resorted to "spirituality".
sen said:
A person who is hungry for number of days will find it “right” to steal a loaf of bread. But the shopkeeper will not see the “right” in it.
sen said:
The example of stealing bread by a hungry man, was an example of right action not of right morality. If someone holds a gun against an atheist, (e.g. Galileo) and asks her to become a theist, she may find it right to do exactly that, for she may wish to see the next morning. It is a case of how right and wrong change with circumstance.
To me the example seemed more related to morality. So how do u define a "right action"? Ur example isn't much comparable to that of stealing. It wud be "intelligent and may his temporary compulsion" otherwise to have become a theist or shud I say "acknowledging" the other person for satisfaction that he has become a theist. On the contrary, a person who steals bread may not find it "intelligent" but only as a last resort to end his hunger for he knows what can be the outcome of that stealing.
Also if the person who is hungry for "a number of days" could have worked, laboured so as to earn a small amount. I hope u wont add paramters now of why he could not work! Even people carrying mobiles and wearing denim jeans steal today. Which "right" will u bring here? I guess its all wrong!!
Your explanation regarding Sherpas, is actually the same as mine. You, not being a Sherpa, could conclude, that they don’t find climbing steep mountains as laborious as, say, you and me, because you have observed them and probably even studied. It simply is the other way of saying that, experiencing is not always necessary to conclude, as knowledge is.
No my explanation is not same! Don't mind, but I think u don't realize what u post. Here's what u posted......
Is it always necessary to experience or practice everything before concluding? I have never climbed mount Everest, and I never will. But it is not difficult for me, or you, to conclude that climbing is a laborious, extremely strenuous job. I don’t have asthma, but it is not difficult for me, or you, to conclude that a patient suffering from this disease will be at great disadvantage, should she decide to climb that mountain. The key is keen observation of the person who is experiencing it, thorough examination of the person, if possible, and finally analyzing the evidences. All of which are processes of gathering knowledge. A doctor makes a successful diagnosis of a disease, not because he was himself previously infected by it, but because, he has the knowledge of its symptoms. He gains this knowledge, through training and observing (and treating) a patient with similar disease. It is not always necessary to experience or practice everything before concluding. Of course, experience helps, but what is necessary, is the knowledge of the matter.
And so, I think u r twisting ur statement. You have never climbed everest, so how can u conclude it laborious? U can only see a lake in ur television box. So how can u say if the water is hot or cold? Observation might help. U may observe a person not used to climbing, and guess that climbing everest is "laborious" or could watch a sherpa do it in much lesser time and guess that it might be "easy". Even after all this u are only observing, and not "rejecting" the possiblity that one can climb the great Mt. Everest!! But I think to make "assumptions or guesses" similarly one needs to observe whats going on and to "conclude" one must have the experience!!
True, the doctor does not reject the possibilities. But he does so because, each possibility is REAL to him. And one of these possibilities will lead him to something REAL, i.e. the disease, itself. By REAL, I mean something that can be tested and verified, empirically.
Again it seems u r deviating from what has been said. I have not said "possiblities", but simply the "possibilty" of the disease (I have not given a choice as in "possibilties") and when I say that, naturally it means, after thorough medical tests and analysis. So obviously there arises no question of "rejection"!!
My argument on, spiritual persons being the highest drinkers of beer/ coke/ pepsi, were based on principles of statistics. If in a room of 10 people, 8 believe in theory A and 2 believe in theory B, then a random sample of, say 6, will reflect the believers of theory A to be greater in number than the believers of theory B. Yes, there is probably no research or data to prove my point. But, to believe, that spiritual people in the European countries, or say, American continents do not drink beer or coke or pepsi, is probably stretching our imagination beyond reason. Coke/ pepsi are health hazard all round the world and indeed toilet cleaners, in every sense of the phrase, but only in India. It is because, our political leaders (sic) have let our land to be the favorite dumping ground, or laboratory of the western companies.
First, I too would like to have those statistics and second, even if they were true then they are simply absurd! I too have seen statistics in newspapers where they say "majority of men like to have a deep and serious relation", "people love to pay taxes" and everything that is marked just by a mere questioning if "if u did or not, yes or no", and third "learn" the definition of spirituality again and thats why I ask a critic must experience it before even debating over it. Even a criminal can say he is good at the time of such statistics gathering queue!
So yes, if the questioning the scientists and its report that majority of em are spiritual doesn't impress u, then don't believe it. I am not forcing! I don't understand why a scientists wud say he is spiritual. Is it a derogatory term or the opposite? Why wud they do that? Why is the science agreeing on yoga, hypnotism etc and its benefits?? Is that also a statistical report concerning "yes or no"?
To be able to tell what a person is thinking, or where is she, at a precise given time, yogis stopping heart beats at will, people receiving intuitional messages are all unproven facts. Proof doesn’t mean a claim to do those, but it means, if those feats could be replicated under controlled environment with credible scientists around.
And who do u call "credible" scientists? One who have their names written in books? I hope u know of INDIAN culture and how much science we had already in our past, where we not only knew of the colors of the planets but also about their rotation, revolution etc. U can simply google for that and understand how modern theories are also coming a synchronization with the ancient phiolosphies!! But neways here...
*www.sol.com.au/kor/10_02.htm
I feel u r far from reality as this is no hidden secret that yogis can control heartbeat. Also, "unproven" doesn't mean "rejected". If so, many theories like big bang have not been "proven", but find their ways in texbooks and then schoolchildren discuss it like some kind of law or a fact and grow up with that misconception. Rejecting something that is practical but not proven only limits the scope of study, speaks how broadminded a person is and thats not very scientific!!
You don’t know this or that:
Please stop making comments like that. It only leads an argument to nullity. The same way as you accuse people of not knowing something, one may label you to be not knowing what you are talking of. A “materialist” can accuse you of commenting on materialism without knowing what it is, particularly, in spite of explaining what it is in clear terms, when you say, “materialism is about material world and its materialistc pleasures”. One may be tempted to accuse you of twisting explanation to better suite your own ideas.
Just because someone holds a view, which is diametrically opposite to yours, it does not mean that the person is a lesser person. If it is so, again, one can say, that since you are holding an opposing view, you become the same, by your own premise, and it goes into an infinite reduction.
I am extremely sorry, if u found it offensive. But some people find the term "absurd" offensive and some find it offensive even when u talk against their opinions and then troll. But neways lets have it ur ways.
Here's an interesting article u may read.
*www.rense.com/general62/expl.htm
Thank you for replying back and filling the void. I will try to answer the points that you have raised, but, not as para by para, as you have done, for the reason of lack of time and of course my limited knowledge of formatting. However I will try to cover everything that seems relevant to the discussion.
.
.
.
You have not experienced, so you don't know:
Dealt with, in my previous post. Hence not repeating. I continue to hold my position.
@Sen : I wud love to discuss with u endlessly. Reflecting ur statement, u r not going to change my stance either. If thats the case, then I guess the debate has ended already as I can't entertain anyone who cannot read the previous topic and replies and then makes me repeat. You came and asked me my point of view, and thats the sole reason I replied. If it wud have been any other regular forum member, then I wudn't have and simply asked them to quote what I have stated already. So I think there's no use of debating this.
There is a reason I format and put it in paras so as to minimize repeatitions! U simply have not answered many questions that I asked or the statements that I discussed. As u might read now, u'll see that I have already repeated a lot.
I hope u read my previous post again and answer them....para by para, the ones u need to. U can take ur time and learn formatting as I have nuthing but time. But then making me repeat and saying it was due to lack of time, only demoralises me. I have already said, take ur time!!
...but simply an open-minded discussion like a true scientist!! 
